Newest at the top
| 2026-01-08 03:51:36 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-01-08 03:46:30 +0100 | acidjnk | (~acidjnk@p200300d6e7171923580d90e1926e8255.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2026-01-08 03:40:35 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2026-01-08 03:35:47 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-01-08 03:32:58 +0100 | <monochrom> | "Forwarding thinking" |
| 2026-01-08 03:32:25 +0100 | <monochrom> | The 501st test case. :) |
| 2026-01-08 03:31:33 +0100 | <monochrom> | I guess moving the goalpost to the opposite side entirely is not what people think when they move the goalpost. >:) |
| 2026-01-08 03:31:08 +0100 | <newmind> | or if you have 499 testcases that pass, and one that fails, guess which one is the interesting one? |
| 2026-01-08 03:29:39 +0100 | <monochrom> | Just rebrand, akak move the goalpost. If the chance of success drops, then speak of the chance of reproducing a heisenbug. >:) |
| 2026-01-08 03:27:42 +0100 | <EvanR> | probability is so subjective |
| 2026-01-08 03:27:19 +0100 | rekahsoft | (~rekahsoft@70.51.99.245) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2026-01-08 03:26:52 +0100 | <EvanR> | now I ran into a funny... in some cases repeating a test causes your confidence to go from 95% to 99% to 99.99999%, in other cases repeated trials causes chance of success to go from 95% 30% 2% xD |
| 2026-01-08 03:24:52 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2026-01-08 03:24:42 +0100 | rainbyte | (~rainbyte@186.22.19.214) rainbyte |
| 2026-01-08 03:23:08 +0100 | rainbyte | (~rainbyte@186.22.19.214) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2026-01-08 03:20:01 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-01-08 03:14:14 +0100 | <monochrom> | (In fact when I pose a programming homework question when teaching, I provide examples and sample test cases. It's good old reliability by redundancy.) |
| 2026-01-08 03:14:06 +0100 | libertyprime | (~libertypr@121.74.62.77) (Quit: leaving) |
| 2026-01-08 03:13:29 +0100 | <EvanR> | 999999% correct |
| 2026-01-08 03:13:20 +0100 | <EvanR> | 99% times 99% times 99% correct equals |
| 2026-01-08 03:12:51 +0100 | <monochrom> | Extra credit if you also provide test cases. (That's like saying the same thing the third way.) |
| 2026-01-08 03:12:47 +0100 | <EvanR> | I write my program from scratch several times so there's less chance of a bug |
| 2026-01-08 03:11:08 +0100 | <monochrom> | err, s/if you make you/if I make you/ |
| 2026-01-08 03:10:52 +0100 | <monochrom> | But the apologetic is that if you make you say the same thing in two ways, once as the program and once more as the claim, and if they are consistent, that's heightened confidence that you have made fewer mistakes. |
| 2026-01-08 03:10:39 +0100 | <geekosaur> | (or anything else, for that matter) |
| 2026-01-08 03:09:22 +0100 | <monochrom> | You can extend that argument to all correctness proofs. The proof only checks that the program doesn't contradict the claim. Nothing says the claim guarantees safety in the first place. |
| 2026-01-08 03:09:09 +0100 | libertyprime | (~libertypr@121.74.62.77) libertyprime |
| 2026-01-08 03:09:07 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2026-01-08 03:04:14 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-01-08 03:04:09 +0100 | xff0x | (~xff0x@fsb6a9491c.tkyc517.ap.nuro.jp) |
| 2026-01-08 03:02:30 +0100 | omidmash1 | omidmash |
| 2026-01-08 03:02:30 +0100 | omidmash | (~omidmash@user/omidmash) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2026-01-08 03:00:56 +0100 | omidmash1 | (~omidmash@user/omidmash) omidmash |
| 2026-01-08 03:00:54 +0100 | Lycurgus | (~juan@user/Lycurgus) (Quit: alsoknownas.renjuan.org ( juan@acm.org )) |
| 2026-01-08 02:53:24 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2026-01-08 02:48:27 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-01-08 02:45:50 +0100 | lbseale | (~quassel@user/ep1ctetus) ep1ctetus |
| 2026-01-08 02:45:07 +0100 | lbseale | (~quassel@user/ep1ctetus) (Client Quit) |
| 2026-01-08 02:42:30 +0100 | Googulator14 | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-4994-68db-cf64-05de-a70a.pool6.digikabel.hu) |
| 2026-01-08 02:42:13 +0100 | Googulator14 | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-4994-68db-cf64-05de-a70a.pool6.digikabel.hu) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2026-01-08 02:42:00 +0100 | lbseale | (~quassel@user/ep1ctetus) ep1ctetus |
| 2026-01-08 02:36:55 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2026-01-08 02:30:24 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-01-08 02:25:44 +0100 | divlamir_ | divlamir |
| 2026-01-08 02:24:52 +0100 | divlamir_ | (~divlamir@user/divlamir) divlamir |
| 2026-01-08 02:24:48 +0100 | divlamir | (~divlamir@user/divlamir) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2026-01-08 02:23:20 +0100 | <newmind> | exactly, the language itself has nothing to do with the inherent safety, that was never my claim. but what it has is a type system that does let you reason where and how IO actually happens. if you need _safety_ you still need sandboxing, vms and whatever else you would use for any other binary |
| 2026-01-08 02:23:15 +0100 | bggd | (~bgg@user/bggd) bggd |
| 2026-01-08 02:22:52 +0100 | Lycurgus | (~juan@user/Lycurgus) Lycurgus |
| 2026-01-08 02:22:22 +0100 | <jreicher> | Nothing in that guarantees safety. |